gatito Posted December 19, 2013 "I" is just a concept. That's not my experience 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted December 19, 2013 Irrelevant (and untrue - unless you are time-bound ) That's called Neovedanta, not to be confused with Neoadvaita. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Vedanta Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted December 19, 2013 That's not my experience So basically you got no reasoning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gatito Posted December 19, 2013 That's called Neovedanta, not to be confused with Neoadvaita. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Vedanta I really don't care what label you want to use So basically you got no reasoning. None that you're able to follow 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted December 19, 2013 None that you're able to follow Yes, we all know every NeoAdvaitin thinks they are the second coming of Jesus. I've been saying it for years. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gatito Posted December 19, 2013 Yes, we all know every NeoAdvaitin thinks they are the second coming of Jesus. I've been saying it for years. You're entitled to hold whatever belief you choose - right or wrong Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted December 19, 2013 (edited) You're entitled to hold whatever belief you choose - right or wrong You are the bear on the right. Edited December 19, 2013 by RongzomFan 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gatito Posted December 19, 2013 You are the bear on the right. LOL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gatito Posted December 19, 2013 On a serious note, the only benchmark is happiness. That's what everyone wants but they look towards the apparent objects (the 10,000 things ) instead of what they already have eternally, the Subject - Consciousness, the Self, Atman (the Tao ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted December 19, 2013 Every Neoadvaitin, like James Swartz, Jeff Foster, Anadi etc., think all the other Neoadvaitins and Buddhists don't "get it". 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted December 19, 2013 (edited) Self is not the aggregates, because the aggregates are plural, yet self is singular. Also we say "my body" which indicates possession of the aggregates by self. But if the self is something other than the aggregates, you should be able to observe that the self and aggregates are completely distinct and have no relationship. But in actuality they occur together. In the end, self is not established. Edited December 19, 2013 by RongzomFan 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yabyum24 Posted December 20, 2013 1. But in actuality they occur together. 2. In the end, self is not established. Fully agree with number 1. but number 2. is an oxymoron. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gatito Posted December 20, 2013 Every Neoadvaitin, like James Swartz, Jeff Foster, Anadi etc., think all the other Neoadvaitins and Buddhists don't "get it". Irrelevant - even if I were a neoadvaitin Self is not the aggregates, because the aggregates are plural, yet self is singular. Also we say "my body" which indicates possession of the aggregates by self. But if the self is something other than the aggregates, you should be able to observe that the self and aggregates are completely distinct and have no relationship. But in actuality they occur together. In the end, self is not established. Where you're going wrong here is in the assumption that the Self is singular when it is actually non-dual and all the apparent objects are also the Self. It is not completely wrong to say that All is Empty (although, ultimately, any statement about non-duality is wrong ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted December 20, 2013 If everything is self, hop into my body right now 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted December 20, 2013 Lmao gatito. you are just like james schwartz, anadi, jeff foster etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amoyaan Posted December 20, 2013 Every Neoadvaitin, like James Swartz, Jeff Foster, Anadi etc., think all the other Neoadvaitins and Buddhists don't "get it". James Swartz teaches traditional vedanta in the lineage of Swami Chinmayanada and Dayananda, it's certainly not neo advaita. Anyway, I'll butt out again Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted December 20, 2013 James Swartz teaches traditional vedanta in the lineage of Swami Chinmayanada and Dayananda, it's certainly not neo advaita. Anyway, I'll butt out again Are the writings of James Swartz higher than translations of medieval Advaita Vedanta? http://www.amazon.com/The-Essential-Vedanta-Treasures-Religions/dp/0941532526 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted December 21, 2013 but number 2. is an oxymoron. ???? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amoyaan Posted December 21, 2013 Are the writings of James Swartz higher than translations of medieval Advaita Vedanta? http://www.amazon.com/The-Essential-Vedanta-Treasures-Religions/dp/0941532526 Not higher, but same sampradaya. When he teaches he teaches directly from the Bhagavad Gita, Shankara, etc, unfolding them sentence by sentence as was taught him. Thanks for the link, that book looks cool 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RongzomFan Posted December 21, 2013 Shankara has a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gatito Posted December 21, 2013 James Swartz teaches traditional vedanta in the lineage of Swami Chinmayanada and Dayananda, it's certainly not neo advaita. Anyway, I'll butt out again RongzomFan chooses to employ "neoadvaitin" as a term of abuse. I've pointed his error out to him on several occasions but it doesn't accord with his predjuces, as he's also asserted that only Hindu priests are "advaitins" and that all others are "neoadvaitins". I've also posted this link: - http://www.advaita.org.uk/teachers/teachers.htm www.advaita.org.uk/teachers/teachers.htm) several times - for others - as RongzomFan is completely unable to grasp the fact that there are several different, albeit overlapping, camps Feel free to butt-in - it's nice to have an intelligent contribution Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gatito Posted December 21, 2013 If everything is self, hop into my body right now Another logical fallacy, here are a few things for you to consider:- Firstly, if everything is Self, that's already the case. Secondly, if, as you attempt to assert, Self don't exist, there would be nothing that could hop. Thirdly, I find the view from here infinitely preferable to the view from there . Fourthly, this Path is clearly not for you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted December 21, 2013 Fourthly, this Path is clearly not for you The reverse can be said by RongzomFan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gatito Posted December 21, 2013 The reverse can be said by RongzomFan. LOL Let's see how my Buddhism 101 pans out http://thetaobums.com/topic/33043-buddhism-101/?p=507729 (thetaobums.com/topic/33043-buddhism-101/?p=507729) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simple_Jack Posted December 21, 2013 Gatito, I'm not surprised that your obsessed with Brahman - the real question is why do you want to try to impose your Brahman on everyone else? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites